Why Are Big Tech CEOs Writing Long Manifestos About AI? (bbc.com)
- Reference: 0184981232
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/26/08/15/0431256/why-are-big-tech-ceos-writing-long-manifestos-about-ai
- Source link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz97ljy91zxo
But the BBC is more interested in [2]why big tech executives keep writing manifestos about AI :
> [Zuckerberg's] vision echoes what AI leaders have expressed in various forms: the product they are building is among the "most important technologies in history." Marc Andreessen, co-founder of early web titan Netscape, perhaps started this trend in 2023 with a 5,000-word essay he called " [3]The Techno-Optimist Manifesto ", which argued innovation was the way to solve life's problems...
>
> As the International Monetary Fund [4]warns AI could affect nearly 40% of jobs and worsen global financial inequality, Zuckerberg says he believes there will be an abundance of jobs in the future. "I do not understand why anyone who believes that AI will eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance would rush to build that future." Never mind that Zuckerberg's Meta has cut 10% of its global workforce — about 8,000 jobs — as the company reorganizes to focus on AI.
>
> Zuckerberg's manifesto is the latest to land in our social media feeds in an effort to put a positive spin on AI. In 2024, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI boss Sam Altman released a manifesto called " [5]The Intelligence Age ", a sweeping expression of optimism about the tech's potential... That same year, in a manifesto titled " [6]Machines of Loving Grace ", Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei touted the potential of AI to transform everything from healthcare to politics.
So what's going on with these tech executives' manifestos? Economics blogger Noah Smith suggested to the BBC "they all feel like it's such an important moment that it's incumbent upon them to do whatever they can to shape the direction that this technology is going." Although he does see some value in their engagement with important issues. "Should we open-source something that has the ability to kill humanity? If you don't take that seriously, you're just a fool."
But Rob Lalka, a business professor at Tulane University, had a different explanation for the BBC:
> Lalka said the timing of Zuckerberg's manifesto coincides with rising anger over AI's impact on everything from jobs to the environment.
>
> And while tech journalists and academics might pore over them trying to glean nuggets of meaning, these executive manifestos are not necessarily landing with the general public. "They're trying to make the case that the positives will far outweigh some of those negatives that the public backlash is pointing out," he said. "But I think a lot of the reasons for optimism are still yet to be seen."
[1] https://www.meta.com/thefutureisforeveryone/
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz97ljy91zxo
[3] https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/
[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67977967
[5] https://ia.samaltman.com/
[6] https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace
Why is Slashdot writing long articles about CEOs (Score:1)
... writing long articles about AI? Are all people bored currently?
LinkedIn Brainrot (Score:5, Interesting)
These guys all live in echo chambers and think they're thought leaders. So they use LLMs to create overlong blather to show how smart they are.
It's pretty simple (Score:2)
They all bet the farm on AI, if it somehow flops, it's their fault, but they never used their money, they'll be fine in some armed compound in Argentina alone with Peter.
AI Control is the new currency (Score:1)
To what Noah Smith is quoted as saying: "Should we open-source something that has the ability to kill humanity? If you don't take that seriously, you're just a fool."
Noah is here an ignorant sparrow. And frankly, he can STFU.
What the rest of us understand is that these major corporations want nothing more than full(est) control over AGI and it's reach into our society. The US gov't already has advanced AI -- that's another topic -- that exists in the darkness of their other agenda, and they will never
Re: (Score:2)
You entirely missed the most egregious error, AI does NOT have "the ability to kill humanity".
Giving software the ability to "kill humanity" is the crime,wiring AI up to it just identifies AI as the particular software. AI is NOT the ability for computers to perform operations, committing murder is one of those potential operations. The backlash AI receives is due to what the AI is wired to do (and how bad it is at doing it), no one dismisses the potential.
And let's be clear, the problem isn't the develop
Re: (Score:2)
AI isn't inherently bad, the system under which AI is being developed is. Capitalism commodifies everything, including humans... slavery is the logical end state of capitalism, commodifying not just the factory or the raw materials, but the worker themselves. In a non-capitalist society, it wouldn't matter that AI ingests and reuses creative output... creators are not beholden to capitalists in order to have food or housing or healthcare. In a non-capitalist society, AI would not be trained on winner-takes
This is how you should feel. (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporate executives often send similar messages to the droves of people they are laying off whenever they merge with another corporation. They tell everyone that the move is some sort of "greater good" and so everyone losing their job should be happy about how much better everything is getting for everyone else. They sometimes go so far as to imply that one is being unenlightened and selfish for being upset about losing their only income stream.
It's easy to say that when you are one of the ones at the top who receives only benefits. The ones who are wondering how they are going to keep their families fed, however, tend to react badly to this utter lack of empathy for their situation.
People might be willing to endure change and uncertainty for a technology that comes with great promise. But those same people will not be so eager to endure unemployment and starvation due to a technology that benefits primarily the wealthy elite. Saying the words "this benefits everyone" will not convince those who can no longer pay the rent.
Mod parent up (Score:1)
Unfortunately, my moderator points ran out. someone please mark +1 Insightful
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate mergers have in most cases another effect: companies that once made great products, after the merge they start to make an inferior product and the brand name either is dismissed or it's used to rebadge stuff made by totally different companies. I'm Thinking about DEC, Compaq and HP, for instance, where the results were ditching the Alpha CPU architecture for the Itanium one, while firing the engineers that designed the Alpha architecture and inteas of selling printers that were reliable, robust an
Because the Epstein class doesn't actually work (Score:5, Insightful)
So they've got nothing but time on their hands. They own things for a living instead of doing things for a living.
Now get back to RTO and don't complain about your 90-minute commute.
Anthropic's most optimistic prediction ... (Score:2)
Dario Amodei (Anthropic CEO)'s "Machines of Loving Grace" was the first of these, and if effect explains why others like Altman and Zuckerberg are chiming in.
Amodei's prediction:
1) AI will take ALL the jobs
2) Since people won't have any jobs, the government will have to provide UBI (universal basic income), aka food stamps
This is the most positive spin Amodei can put on the future that he is rushing to create, and not surprisingly people are not happy. The public increasingly see AI as an unwelcome technolo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - makes no sense to me either, but notable that this "you'll all be on UBI (government welfare)" is the best outcome he can think of.
It's because they can't sing (Score:2)
"Don't worry, be happy!" [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And to misquote someone else, will AI become the new "Opiate of the masses?"
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU
Laying the runway for seeking a bailout... (Score:2)
It's because they know their end is near and are trying to paint a rosy picture of AI being a great thing for all of humanity. Once they have convinced everyone and more importantly the government about that, they can beg their way out of their impending financial mess.
Tragedy of the Commons (Score:2)
[1]https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/2... [scry.llc]
Tragedy of the Commons is a quandary where self-interest actions by many members creates a collective disaster for all. Previous economic depressions are one example. Zuckerberg is blinded by his self-interest, and I imagine the others are, too.
They don't accept the concept of equilibrium.
[2]https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/2... [scry.llc]
.
[1] https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/29/dalio-and-me/
[2] https://www.scry.llc/2025/01/27/equilibrium/
Our Benevolent Feudalism (Score:3)
Musk has expressed a similar view in his Economist interview; there will be abundance because things will get too cheap to meter. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Don't believe it. This view was expressed in 1902 and never materialized.
Our Benevolent Feudalism by William J. Ghent 1902
[2]https://www.gutenberg.org/eboo... [gutenberg.org]
> Professor John B. Clark, of Columbia University, also sees in vast inequalities of fortune the basis of a happy state.
>
> But Professor Clark, touched by prophetic fire, pictures a new society in which inequality is the great blessing. “The world of the near future,” he writes in his recent article on “The Society of the Future,” “will not be one with inequalities levelled out of it; and to any persons to whom inequality of possessions seems inherently evil, this world will not be satisfactory. It will present a condition of vast and ever growing inequality. With a democracy that depends on a likeness of material possessions it will have nothing in common. The rich will continually grow richer, and the multi-millionnaires will approach the billion-dollar standard.... If an earthly Eden is to come through competition, it will come not in spite of, but by means of, an enormous increase of inequality of outward possessions.”
Will Musk & the oligarchs be our Benevolent Feudalist masters? Meanwhile Musk is a near trillionaire and supporting far right candidates for this next election.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuoqKYxDHVc
[2] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53052
Low part IQ bell curve (Score:3)
So, I am not a professional programmer. I am a hardware designer. I use an llm for my hobby projects. It is a mixed bag, but yes, it speeds up my work a lot. I let it do the boring stuff. The stuff you'd outsource to someone fresh and young, or someone who reached his plateau on the corporate ladder and found peace with a "low level" programming job. What do we do with these people? AI replaced them. Now they have to do something else.
Adapt, sure! Let them leverage their capabilities with Ai! Uhm... what if they can't? Communicating with an llm takes cognitive skills. What if they are not the brightest? I know everybody on slashdot is on the far right side of the IQ bell curve, but plenty of people are on the far left. I am having a hard time imagining what their future is going to be. Especially when some form of cheap robot joins the playing field...
The real effects of AI (Score:2)
We need to distinguish between the theoretical effects that AI might have in the future, and the real effects it is actually having right now.
First the theoretical effects. On one hand the optimists promise to solve all the world's problems, from disease to poverty to climate change. On the other hand the pessimists warn it could destroy humanity. There are credible arguments on both sides and we should take both possibilities seriously, but also remember they're speculative and may not happen.
If a techn
"Don't forget me" (Score:2)
Zuckerbook's extruded wheeze was predictable based on the existence of the others - the cool kids down the hall were getting attention for doing it.
The Illusion of Empowerment :o (Score:2)
Mark Zuckerberg’s “The Future is for Everyone” reads less like a blueprint for shared prosperity than a polished piece of corporate propaganda designed to legitimise Meta’s dominance over the next technological epoch. Beneath its utopian rhetoric lies a familiar playbook: concentrated power is reframed as empowerment, commercial strategy is dressed up as moral philosophy, and Meta’s business model is presented as the only viable path forward. While Zuckerberg champions “o
citizens united for the AI era (Score:1)
So Citizens United in effect argued corporations should have privileges humans enjoy (donating cash to campaigns). What about data centers? I mean, individual data centers, outside of ownership? The thinking goes: the US invested/invests in these data centers and has a stake in AI-producing companies, who in turn depend on data centers. Clip the data centers and you clip AI, so they are national importance, on par with the corporations above them.
Who are these people? (Score:2)
"Tech CEOs" generating praises for AI are all hard-working and extremely compassionate individuals who are careful and considerate and do whatever they can for the benefit of humanity first. They always follow the rules. They're wealthy because they're super smart. We should listen to them when they say this is the biggest opportunity since slavery and sugar cane.
Yeah. Sure.
Yeah, AI manifestos gave me acne to (Score:2)
I'm starting to pore over these manifestos too
"The Nerd Reich" by Gil Duran (Score:2)
Author is on a book tour, so I've heard a couple interviews with him. Based on those, I'd characterize Duran's perspective as "Worst likely case", i.e. it's a plausible outcome. What I don't know is whether the people who have the beliefs described in that book are as organized as the book says.
And for at least 5 years, I've been saying "Palantir is the most dangerous company in America."
The first CEO who (Score:1)
STFU will win
It's a bit too early for declarations like this. (Score:2)
> the product they are building is among the "most important technologies in history."
That will actually be for history to decide.
Fuck You (Score:2)
> "Should we open-source something that has the ability to kill humanity? If you don't take that seriously, you're just a fool."
Fuck you, asshole. Who are you or them to decide who gets that power? But, the power is pure fantasy anyway. DeepSeek and several others are open source/weights and nobody is dead. Seems like only fools making those SciFi assertions or attempting to make them realities.
Occam's Razor & Desperation (Score:2)
Simples explanations are usually the best.
CEOs are the ultimate salespeople, selling you their deam. All those manifestos are nothing more than an ultimate sales pitch.
Billions are being spent on something that is not bringing any significant returns so they must be in a panic mode. Why else bother a CEO for their opinion?
They are spending all that money (Score:5, Funny)
...so may as well have the LLM crap out 6500 words for the occasion...
Re: (Score:2)
... and LLM might do a better job than Zuck. AI might not yet be as much of a sociopath.
Re: (Score:1)
> Marc Andreessen, co-founder of early web titan Netscape, perhaps started this trend in 2023 with a 5,000-word essay he called "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto", which argued innovation was the way to solve life's problems...
He's right, innovation is the best way. But neither he nor Mark Zucklefuck or any of the other corrupt idiots is actually doing anything that even remotely qualifies as "innovation".